June 1992 LSAT Section 1 Question 3

Mayor of Plainsville: In order to help the economy of Plainsville, I am using some of our tax revenues to help bring ...

DevinFuller on April 27, 2023

Breakdown

May we receive a breakdown of this particular argument? I understand the negation test, but is it we are taking as fact that the first sentence of the citizens argument hence the negation of the correct answer becomes true? I struggle understanding this one a bit. Thank you!

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Emil-Kunkin on May 4, 2023

Hi, the citizens argument is that the mayor must have some other motive than attracting business because the business park would bring in twice as much business as the highway. Since the first sentence is the conclusion we don't have to take it as a fact. For necessary assumptions we are looking to find something that must be true if the argument makes sense (and thus if negated would destroy the argument).

If the mayor disagreed that the business park would bring in more revenue, or were unaware that it was even an option, then the citizen groups argument would make no sense, since it's possible the mayor was choosing what they legitimately think is the best way to bring in new business.